【摘要】：適用法律說理是判決書說理的重要內(nèi)容,它由定罪適用法律說理和量刑適用法律說理組成,是對運(yùn)用法律解決定罪和量刑問題的過程解釋說明。實(shí)踐中,多數(shù)刑事判決書的適用法律說理都過于簡單,導(dǎo)致整個判決書說理不足,可接受性低。而過去十年間,判決書說理問題一直沒有改善。從適用法律說理方面進(jìn)行研究,不僅是研究角度的創(chuàng)新,而且有利于使判決說理問題更加具體化地呈現(xiàn),有利于提高判決書的說理性。此外,研究判決書適用法律說理問題還可以為當(dāng)前的司法改革貢獻(xiàn)一份力量。本文以閆嘯天等三個案件的判決書為依托,對其適用法律說理問題進(jìn)行分析。通過分析發(fā)現(xiàn),三份判決書在適用法律說理上都存在問題。具體表現(xiàn)為:定罪上主要是缺乏法律規(guī)定的展示和解釋,對彼罪的分析不足;量刑上表現(xiàn)在對主刑的適用說理不足,對附加刑的適用說理畸輕。引發(fā)上述問題的原因有內(nèi)在和外在之分。內(nèi)在原因主要是法官自身的原因,主要有兩個方面。第一,法官對適用法律說理的受眾范圍認(rèn)識不足,對各受眾群體的說理需求認(rèn)識不清。第二,法官在具體適用法律說理時(shí),沒有認(rèn)識到法益分析在適用法律說理上的作用,具體表現(xiàn)在:定罪方面,忽視法益分析在認(rèn)定罪與否、此罪與彼罪方面的作用,在量刑方面,忽視法益分析在認(rèn)定量刑區(qū)間方面的作用。外在原因主要是從法官所處的適用法律說理環(huán)境和制度層面進(jìn)行分析。在適用法律說理環(huán)境方面,法官受當(dāng)前定罪說理模式,“輕量刑”的傳統(tǒng)觀念,審判獨(dú)立性三個方面的影響;在制度層面,我國缺乏法律適用的激勵機(jī)制,法律文書指導(dǎo)的作用也具有局限性。上述原因共同導(dǎo)致了判決書適用法律說理不足。通過以上分析,筆者結(jié)合當(dāng)前司法改革的大背景,從正面和側(cè)面兩個角度對解決判決書適用法律說理問題提出建議。具體而言,正面建議是構(gòu)建適用法律說理的新模式,主要從厘清定罪、量刑適用法律說理的構(gòu)成上入手;側(cè)面建議包括以立法提升適用法律說理的約束剛性,建立適用法律說理的考評機(jī)制,完善判決答疑機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:Application of legal reasoning is an important content of judgment reasoning, which is composed of applicable legal reasoning of conviction and applicable legal reasoning of sentencing, and is an explanation of the process of applying the law to solve the problem of conviction and sentencing. In practice, the applicable legal reasoning of most criminal judgments is too simple, which leads to insufficient reasoning and low acceptability of the whole judgment. Over the past decade, judgment reasoning has not improved. The research from the aspect of applicable legal reasoning is not only the innovation of the research angle, but also helps to make the judgment reasoning appear more concretely and to improve the rationality of judgment. In addition, the study of the legal reasoning of judgment application can also contribute to the current judicial reform. Based on the judgment of Yan Xiaotian and other three cases, this paper analyzes the applicable legal reasoning. Through analysis, it is found that there are problems in the applicable legal reasoning of the three judgments. The specific manifestations are: the conviction is mainly lack of legal provisions of the display and explanation, the analysis of the crime is inadequate; sentencing is reflected in the application of the main punishment of inadequate reasoning, the application of supplementary punishment is abnormally light. The causes of these problems are internal and external. The internal reason is mainly the judge's own reason, mainly has two aspects. First, the judges have insufficient understanding of the audience scope of applicable law reasoning and lack of clear understanding of the reasoning needs of various audience groups. Second, when the judge applies the legal reasoning specifically, he does not realize the function of the legal interest analysis in the application of the law reasoning, which is manifested in the following aspects: conviction, neglecting the role of the legal interest analysis in the determination of the crime, the crime and the other crime. In the aspect of sentencing, the function of legal interest analysis in determining sentencing interval is ignored. The external reason is mainly from the judge's applicable legal reasoning environment and system level to carry on the analysis. In the aspect of applicable legal reasoning environment, judges are influenced by the current conviction reasoning mode, the traditional concept of "light sentencing" and the independence of trial. The function of legal document guidance also has limitation. The above reasons together led to the lack of legal reasoning in the application of the judgment. Through the above analysis, the author puts forward some suggestions to solve the legal reasoning problem of judgment application from two angles: positive and side, combined with the background of the current judicial reform. Specifically, the positive suggestion is to construct a new model of applicable legal reasoning, which mainly starts from clarifying the constitution of conviction and sentencing applicable legal reasoning. Establish the evaluation mechanism of applicable legal reasoning and perfect the judgment answering mechanism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周芳芳;;論刑事判決說理的“私人訂制”——從一份“偉大”的判決書說起[J];東方法學(xué);2016年03期

2 焦悅勤;;刑事判決書量刑說理現(xiàn)狀調(diào)查及改革路徑研究[J];河北法學(xué);2016年02期

3 雷小政;;刑事裁判文書說理的困境與出路:以死刑案件為分析樣本[J];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院學(xué)報(bào);2015年06期

4 王利榮;張孟東;;判罰結(jié)論的理性證立——由量刑說理切入[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年06期

5 凌斌;;法官如何說理:中國經(jīng)驗(yàn)與普遍原理[J];中國法學(xué);2015年05期

6 董靜潔;陳志剛;;刑事司法公開的維度與限度[J];河北法學(xué);2015年06期

7 周光權(quán);;判決充分說理與刑事指導(dǎo)案例制度[J];法律適用;2014年06期

8 孫萬懷;;公開固然重要,說理更顯公正——“公開三大平臺”中刑事裁判文書公開之局限[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2014年02期

9 孫智超;;中德兩國判決書制作風(fēng)格初探[J];刑事法評論;2013年02期

10 魏勝強(qiáng);;當(dāng)面說理、強(qiáng)化修辭與重點(diǎn)推進(jìn)——關(guān)于提高我國判決書制作水平的思考[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 劉樹德;;增強(qiáng)裁判說理的當(dāng)下意義[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 王聰;秦川;;判決書制作的說理之道[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

3 楊興培;;若在國外,李昌奎判決書該如何寫[N];法制日報(bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 唐世齊;刑事判決說理制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：2220878